get_price_by_symbolAggregated exchange price for one symbol, plus the raw per-provider prices that fed the aggregate. Use get_price for multiple symbols in one call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vs | No | Quote currency, default "usd" | |
| region | No | Optional region filter for provider selection | |
| symbol | Yes | Single coin symbol, e.g. "btc" |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint; description adds that it returns raw per-provider prices, which is useful beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and returned data, then sibling distinction. Every sentence adds value with no waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With output schema present and description explaining aggregate + raw prices, the tool definition is complete for a single-symbol price lookup.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 3 parameters; description adds no extra parameter detail beyond implying the return structure, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it provides aggregated exchange price for one symbol plus raw per-provider prices, and distinguishes from sibling get_price for multiple symbols.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'Use get_price for multiple symbols in one call', providing clear guidance when to use this tool vs. a sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of cryptocurrency data: coin metadata, prices, rates (current, historical, changes), earn products, market summaries, stablecoin analysis, and symbol resolution. The detailed descriptions clearly differentiate even similar tools like get_price and get_price_by_symbol, or get_rates and list_earn_products.
All names use snake_case, but conventions vary: some are verb_noun (get_coin, list_coins, resolve_symbol), some are noun_noun (coin_history, fear_greed_index, market_summary), and some include 'by' for parameters. This mix is readable but could be more consistent.
With 21 tools, the server covers a broad domain of cryptocurrency data without being overwhelming. Each tool serves a clear purpose, and the count is appropriate for a comprehensive data API.
The tool set covers nearly all expected operations for a crypto data server: coin listing, metadata, prices, historical data, rates, yield products, market stats, top coins, stablecoin analysis, and symbol resolution. No obvious gaps are present for the stated focus on price, rate, and yield data.